by Umberto Pascali
April 02, 2026
from UmbertoPascali Website

translation from Italian by Biblioteca Pleyades

Original Italian version

Spanish version

Russia vs. Israel's Nuclear Samson Option - see comments below on the recent TASS article of April 2, 2026 - is a story of tensions, countering nuclear threats, nuclear deterrence, and strategic warnings:

• Russian opposition to Israel's nuclear monopoly
   

• Push for a Middle East zone free of weapons of mass destruction
   

• Drawing attention to the catastrophic risks of any nuclear escalation

The greatest danger, according to US analysts such as Col. Douglas Macgregor, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, and Larry Johnson, is precisely that,

"if anyone uses nuclear weapons in the current conflict, it will most likely be Israel..."

1. The Origins of the Samson Option (1960s–1991)

The "Samson Option" (from the biblical Samson destroying the temple on the Philistines and himself) is Israel's unofficial "last resort" deterrence doctrine:

If the State of Israel were to face an existential threat (total invasion or imminent destruction), it would launch a massive nuclear attack against its enemies, even at the cost of apocalyptic consequences for all.

The concept was developed in the 1960s by the founding leaders (Ben-Gurion, Peres, Dayan, Eshkol), threatened (reportedly) by Golda Meyer, and popularized by Seymour Hersh's book "The Samson Option - Israel's Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy" (1991).

Hersh documents how Israel secretly developed its nuclear arsenal (estimated today at 200-400 or more warheads) and how this doctrine is an extreme deterrent against non-nuclear enemies.

Israel has never officially confirmed or denied its possession of nuclear weapons (a policy of "nuclear ambiguity"), but the Samson Doctrine is described as "massive nuclear retaliation" in the event of an existential threat.

Key quote from Hersh (1991):

"The Israelis have never denied the existence of the Samson Option. Their deterrence doctrine is simple:

'You will never defeat us, because if you push us too far, we will take everyone with us'."

2. Russia's Historical Position and the Alliance with Iran

The USSR (and later Russia) always knew about Israel's arsenal.

Moscow has supported the creation of a "Middle East nuclear-weapon-free zone" since the 1960s and has invited Israel to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as a non-nuclear state.

Pragmatic relations with Israel (coordination on strikes in Syria), but firm opposition to Israel's nuclear monopoly and operational alliance with Iran (supplies of defense systems).

3. The 2023-2026 Escalation and Statements by Independent US Analysts

November 2023 (Gaza War):

Israeli Minister Amichai Eliyahu suggested a "nuclear strike" on Gaza.

Russian spokesperson Maria Zakharova commented that the statement "raised numerous questions" about Israel's nuclear possession and Tel Aviv's opposition to a nuclear-free zone.

2025-2026 (Israel-Iran war):

As US-Israeli strikes against Iran intensify, independent US analysts warn of the real risk of the Samson Option.
 

Col. Douglas Macgregor (former Pentagon advisor, interviews on Judging Freedom with Judge Andrew Napolitano and on MOATS with George Galloway, March 2026):

"If a nuclear weapon is used, it will be by Netanyahu."

Putin has reportedly already delivered a private ultimatum to Netanyahu:

"If Israel dares to use even one nuclear weapon in the Middle East, Russia will launch a nuclear weapon on Israel."

(Written, audio, and video quotes confirmed in interviews on March 22, 2026, and video.)

Macgregor emphasizes that Israel possesses a complete nuclear triad (90-200 warheads) and that its use would be catastrophic.

Col. Lawrence Wilkerson (former chief of staff to Colin Powell, interviews on Democracy Now! and other independent outlets, March 2026):

Netanyahu,

"is ready to use a nuclear weapon" if the war with Iran escalates.

"He will use not just one, but 15 or 16 nuclear weapons, because one alone would be useless: Iran is the size of Western Europe, with 93 million inhabitants."

Wilkerson warns that the Samson Option could be activated and would lead to a global catastrophe involving Russia and China. (video and artícle)

Larry Johnson (former CIA analyst, Judge Napolitano's group):

Warns that Israeli nuclear use against Iran would push Tehran to review its nuclear doctrine and could accelerate proliferation, with disastrous strategic consequences for the US and Israel.

These analysts agree:

"The greatest nuclear danger today comes from Israel's 'Samson Option'," not from other actors...

4. Current Time - TASS Article, April 2, 2026

In the midst of the escalation between Israel and Iran (with discussions on US TV about Netanyahu's nuclear use), Russian Senator Alexey Pushkov (chairman of the Federation Council's Information Committee) stated on TASS:

"If they do it [use nuclear weapons] - I repeat:

no one believes they will, but the mere fact that it's being discussed raises a number of questions - then it's only a matter of time before other countries in the region, which can also afford it financially, proceed to acquire nuclear capabilities.

If this threshold is crossed in the war with Iran, we will no longer have nine nuclear states, but many more."

Pushkov does not threaten a direct Russian attack, but warns of systemic consequences:

Israeli nuclear use = end of the regional taboo = uncontrolled proliferation (Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, etc.).

Conclusion - A Terrible Danger

Although Russia has apparently not officially declared its intention to militarily "neutralize" the Samson Option with an automatic nuclear counter-threat, its strategy is diplomatic deterrence, alliance with Iran, and emphasis on proliferation risks.

The statements of Macgregor, Wilkerson, Johnson, and Pushkov converge on one clear point:

"The eventual use of nuclear weapons (even dozens, like the 15-16 or more indicated by Wilkerson) in the current conflict would almost certainly be by Israel," with apocalyptic consequences for the region and the world.

This is the greatest danger:
a broken nuclear taboo that would transform the Middle East into a multi-nuclear powder keg.

The TASS article of April 2, 2026, is the last public chapter in this calculated warning.

Golda Meir and the Israeli Nuclear Option during the Yom Kippur War (1973) against Egypt and Syria is one of the most controversial and debated episodes in Israeli nuclear history, closely linked to the origins of the Samson Option.

There was no use of nuclear weapons against Egypt (or Syria), but rather a dramatic internal debate and a threat to deploy a nuclear deterrent during a period of grave military crisis.

Context - The Yom Kippur War (October 6-25, 1973)

Egypt and Syria launched a coordinated surprise attack on October 6, 1973 (Yom Kippur).

Arab forces achieved spectacular initial successes:
the Egyptians crossed the Suez Canal, and the Syrians advanced on the Golan Heights.

Israel was caught unprepared and, within the first 48 hours, risked military collapse.

Defense Minister Moshe Dayan returned from the northern front visibly shaken and spoke of the "end of the Third Temple."
 

The October 7, 1973 Meeting and Dayan's Proposal

On the afternoon of the second day of the war (October 7), in a small meeting in Golda Meir's office (also present were Israel Galili, Yigal Allon, and aide Arnon "Sini" Azaryahu), Dayan proposed preparing the "nuclear option" as a last resort.

According to Azaryahu's direct testimony (released in 2013 by the Wilson Center):

Dayan said that "the situation is very serious [...] it would be appropriate to also prepare a demonstration of the nuclear option."

Dayan suggested calling Shalhevet Freier (director of the Israel Atomic Energy Commission) to discuss arming or a "demonstration" (test or visible signal).

***

Seymour Hersh, in his book "The Samson Option" (1991), reports that Golda Meir authorized the arming of "13 nuclear bombs" (for Jericho missiles and F-4 Phantom aircraft) to be used against Egyptian and Syrian targets, as a form of "blackmail" against the US for an airlift of supplies.

Hersh describes a more tense meeting (dated by him on October 8) in which the decision was made to arm the weapons in the event of a total collapse...